a different guest wrote:Yes, and it's the 'finer' details that are so worrying. For a start you might like to read the student testimonials on the JC site (girls 10 years old) about how wonderful it was to have the special lessons in 'obeying'.

I would question why they make a gender distinction of senior girls philosophy, as it could be taken that senior boys philosophy is somehow different.

With only a single example, however, it would be difficult to draw any conclusions or comparsions between them; any such attempt would be pure conjecture (without additional information).

For example, the lessons on forgiveness and obedience: there is nothing to suggest that they do not give the same lessons to boys, and certainly nothing in the quotes about females being obedient to males.

The quotes talk about children obeying, adults obeying and everyone obeying (none gender specific). It talks about obeying laws (or you go to jail), road rules, and the Ten Commandments.

Is there something in the quotes that I am missing? Is there anything in there to suggest gender inequality (other than why they feel the need to distinguish girls philosopy)? Or have you made an assumption (perhaps based on other knowledge), that somehow the obedience part (and the forgiveness part???) applies more to girls than boys?

I presume they would teach the same things to boys (or do you have evidence that they teach boys _not_ to obey laws, road rules or the Ten Commandments?).

If generally okay with laws and road rules, but not so sure about the Ten Commandments. Which version do they mean -- Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Christian Protestant, or one of the various minor sects? The 10C does have gender bias (coveting wives, but not husbands), but then again the 10C also supports slavery (so my son will learn he is not allowed to covet his neighbours slaves -- just great!)

Personally, I prefer to religiously follow the Pentabarf (the Five Commandments).

a different guest wrote:

For example, whilst there may be government schools that include pants in girl uniforms, are there any that allow skirts/tunics for boys?

Now you're being silly

Actually, a response of incredulousness to such as suggestion is purely cultural conditioning.

There is nothing inherently silly about males wearing skirt or tunic type clothing -- in fact historically it was common. (My wife was commently recently on the skirts worn in Ray Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts).

Trousers have only been in use in the west since around 16th century, and there are still many counter examples these days -- scottish kilts, priestly robes, nightshirts, etc.

What does this mean however? Does it mean that John Colet's policy of male staff to wear tie and shirt, and females wearing skirts (which they are certainly not alone in -- I have seen corporate organisations, such as the CBA, with the same rules for their staff) is "proscribing current cultural standards of good attire" (with no comment on what that standard is and being agnostic as to it's equality), or a "promulgation of gender discrimination"?

Not exactly the same, but it reminded me of a school policy I once read elsewhere (but I think JC is the same) of no unnaturally coloured hair at the school -- I wonder what they would do if I turned up with _my_ hair coloured blue? If I choose to colour my son's hair blue what has that got to do with education?

(For the record, I did turn up at my son's childcare with blue hair for a while -- the kids loved it.)

Sly - what they teach boys vee girls does seem to differ - tho probably in that it is couched in differing terms. In the adult courses classes are segregated after a certain level.

Keep in mind that the SES keep their belief system quite secret - but according to some ex-senior members who used to post here, the ultimate goal is the establishment of Plato's Republic, with, of course, the SES people in the ruling class.

Some suggested reading of threads (at least the first page or two - don't want to make it too onerous)

I also suggest you do a search for posts by a poster called "temporarily duped" who recently withdrew her child from an aussie SES primary school. Her son came home (at the grand old age of 5) saying some awfully strange things.

The thing is, say you sign your kid up for schooling in Catholic ed - at least you have a pretty good idea of the underlying idealogy.

And given many Aussie Catholics don't agree 100% with the Church, it's not as if some hard and fast universally accepted 'truths' are promulgated by everyone involved.

Not so the SES, because they have "THE TRUTH" and are the ONLY source of this "TRUTH" and everyone else is wrong (and, of a lower order, as they are "asleep"). The roots in the english class system are quite obvious when you delve into it. You should read McLarens view on Australians!

The thing is you'v enrolled your child into a school whose core idealogy you make presumptions at, but have no real hard and fast facts - nor will you get them until you sign up for their adult courses. There you will learn the wonders of such thing as the wisdom of Chief Seattle, an American Indian whose speech in the 1800s is revered by the SES even though it was written in the 1970s by a white American screenwriter.

Don't ya love 'the truth"?

ETA: sorry if my tone sounds a little snippy in this post - just their attitude to women gets up my nose

Last edited by a different guest on Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Seems private sector schools don't have the accountability for these as state schools do. For instance, it is a simple matter of only letting the top cohort in a year level sit the test which would help fudge the figures.

State schools are not allowed to 'advertise' their results yet, to compare, I have found from a reliable source that a large state primary school in the same school district, results were that 80% of the kids were in the top two bands.

a different guest wrote:For instance, it is a simple matter of only letting the top cohort in a year level sit the test which would help fudge the figures.

So, you are saying that John Colet did _not_ fudge their results, because "In 2005, 100% of Year 3 students and 100% of Year 5 Students participated in the statewide Basic Skills Test (BST) and Primary Writing Assessment (PWA)." (from their 2005 annual report)

I'm glad you are accepting their results are an accurate picture of the students at the school. *1

a different guest wrote:a large state primary school in the same school district, results were that 80% of the kids were in the top two bands.

Which is broadly in line with John Colet (50-60% in top band, 100% in top three), showing that John Colet is about the same, when accounting for socio-economic factors. I thought we were trying to find evidence that JC is behind other schools?

What is interesting was that JC had no students that did poorly (none in the bottom half), although that is probably not statistically significant. (If the true probability was around 96-98% for top three bands, comparable to other private schools, then a result of 100% is within one standard deviation; not tht binomal probablities exactly apply).

- Sly

*1 This a completely facetious argument by me, of course: just because you wanted to infer statement A (JC is academically poor) from a proposition B (JC fudged results), doesn't mean that by showing that ~B is true doesn't mean you were actually supporting ~A, i.e. B => A does not mean ~B => ~A. In other words, "I put words into your mouth".

I thought we were trying to find evidence that JC is behind other schools?

Yup - and we're not going to find that in the school's own prospectus are we?

You might care to dismiss anecdotal evidence, but MM and Temp Dupe had remarkably similar experiences with their children in SES primary schools (including being 'behind' when moved to a normal school) - albeit the schools were approx 17,000kms apart.

According to another reliable source in the JC school zone, kids moved out of JC have also found to be behind their new peers.

Sprouting Shakespeare might look impressive - but it's hardly a sign that a child has been actually learning.

melba wrote:The meddling by your tutor in your personal life is quite overt- you must tell them everything and consult them before making any decisions- the amount of timnes I got into trouble and given punishments for not doing this or not doing what they wanted me to!!In Melbourne this sort of pressure seems to be exerted more on the females than the men.

I am a 15 year ex-member of the Melbourne School. I am sure we must know each other reasonably well.Can you say more about the punishments? I never experienced any or maybe I am so thick-headed they were not perceived as such.

As the post is off topic i didn't think that doing a new post for it was appropriate, hope nobody minds too much!

I'd just be really curious if anyone knows Melanie Milne. She was from the Melbourne school originally (and went back there) but spent about 5 years in the London school about 1995- 2000. (for architecture studies) I'd just be interested to know if she's still in the school and how she getting on these days.

Maybe someone could say i asked after her (Thomas Lawley) Thanks in advance!